Update unwrap_get code review suggestions

This commit is contained in:
Michael Wright 2019-01-07 06:22:39 +02:00
parent 4add1e23f9
commit d2ea6355a8
4 changed files with 24 additions and 15 deletions

View file

@ -1628,14 +1628,13 @@ fn lint_get_unwrap(cx: &LateContext<'_, '_>, expr: &hir::Expr, get_args: &[hir::
// Handle the case where the result is immedately dereferenced
// by not requiring ref and pulling the dereference into the
// suggestion.
if needs_ref {
if let Some(parent) = get_parent_expr(cx, expr) {
if let hir::ExprKind::Unary(op, _) = parent.node {
if op == hir::UnOp::UnDeref {
needs_ref = false;
span = parent.span;
}
}
if_chain! {
if needs_ref;
if let Some(parent) = get_parent_expr(cx, expr);
if let hir::ExprKind::Unary(hir::UnOp::UnDeref, _) = parent.node;
then {
needs_ref = false;
span = parent.span;
}
}

View file

@ -46,6 +46,8 @@ fn main() {
let _ = &some_hashmap[&1];
let _ = &some_btreemap[&1];
let _ = false_positive.get(0).unwrap();
// Test with deref
let _: u8 = boxed_slice[1];
}
{

View file

@ -46,6 +46,8 @@ fn main() {
let _ = some_hashmap.get(&1).unwrap();
let _ = some_btreemap.get(&1).unwrap();
let _ = false_positive.get(0).unwrap();
// Test with deref
let _: u8 = *boxed_slice.get(1).unwrap();
}
{

View file

@ -36,41 +36,47 @@ error: called `.get().unwrap()` on a BTreeMap. Using `[]` is more clear and more
LL | let _ = some_btreemap.get(&1).unwrap();
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try this: `&some_btreemap[&1]`
error: called `.get().unwrap()` on a slice. Using `[]` is more clear and more concise
--> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:50:21
|
LL | let _: u8 = *boxed_slice.get(1).unwrap();
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try this: `boxed_slice[1]`
error: called `.get_mut().unwrap()` on a slice. Using `[]` is more clear and more concise
--> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:53:9
--> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:55:9
|
LL | *boxed_slice.get_mut(0).unwrap() = 1;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try this: `boxed_slice[0]`
error: called `.get_mut().unwrap()` on a slice. Using `[]` is more clear and more concise
--> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:54:9
--> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:56:9
|
LL | *some_slice.get_mut(0).unwrap() = 1;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try this: `some_slice[0]`
error: called `.get_mut().unwrap()` on a Vec. Using `[]` is more clear and more concise
--> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:55:9
--> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:57:9
|
LL | *some_vec.get_mut(0).unwrap() = 1;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try this: `some_vec[0]`
error: called `.get_mut().unwrap()` on a VecDeque. Using `[]` is more clear and more concise
--> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:56:9
--> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:58:9
|
LL | *some_vecdeque.get_mut(0).unwrap() = 1;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try this: `some_vecdeque[0]`
error: called `.get().unwrap()` on a Vec. Using `[]` is more clear and more concise
--> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:65:17
--> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:67:17
|
LL | let _ = some_vec.get(0..1).unwrap().to_vec();
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try this: `some_vec[0..1]`
error: called `.get_mut().unwrap()` on a Vec. Using `[]` is more clear and more concise
--> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:66:17
--> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:68:17
|
LL | let _ = some_vec.get_mut(0..1).unwrap().to_vec();
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try this: `some_vec[0..1]`
error: aborting due to 12 previous errors
error: aborting due to 13 previous errors